SURPREME COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF A MUSLIM WOMAN
The
court ruled 8-1 that the company failed to accommodate Samantha Elauf's
religious needs when she was not hired on the basis that her hijab
violated company dress policy. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented with
part of the ruling but concurred with the rest.
Abercrombie
& Fitch argued that Elauf couldn't succeed without first showing
that the employer had "actual knowledge" of her need for a religious
accommodation. But the Court disagreed, and sent the case back down to
the lower court for further consideration.
"An applicant need show only that his need
for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's
decision, not that the employer had knowledge of his need," Justice
Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.
The
case was being closely watched by other retailers with so called "look
policies" as well as religious liberty groups who believe that an
employee shouldn't have to explain their religious justification if the
employer already has reason to know it.
"The significance of today's ruling is
that an employer cannot put its head in the sand when it has reason to
believe that an applicant will need a religious accommodation," said
Gregory Lipper of Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
who joined a brief in favor of Elauf.
"It
means that if an employer thinks a potential employee needs a religious
accommodation, than the employer needs to make a reasonable effort to
accommodate; it can't reject the applicant and then plead ignorance, "
he said.
The controversy began in 2008
when then 17-year-old Samantah Elauf sought a job with the retailer.
Prior to the interview, Elauf was nervous she might not be hired because
of the black headscarf that she wears for religious reasons. She
interviewed with assistant manager Heather Cooke, however, and although
she was told that the company's "look policy" meant she shouldn't wear a
lot of make up, black clothing or nail polish, her head scarf never
came up.
But after the interview Cooke sought approval from her district manager.
She said she told the manager that she assumed Elauf was Muslim and
figured she wore the head scarf for religious reasons. The manager said
Elauf shouldn't be hired because the scarf was inconsistent with the
look policy that bans head gear.
A federal agency, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission sued on Elauf's behalf. After arguments, P. David
Lopez, EEOC General Counsel issued a statement saying," Monday's case
is the latest effort to ensure all persons protected by Title VII are
not placed in the difficult position of choosing between adherence to
one's faith and a job."
In Court
lawyers for the government argued that it was not Elauf's obligation to
give direct notice that she needed an accommodation.
"Knowledge of the need for an
accommodation requires an understanding not simply of an applicant's
religious practices but also of company policies," wrote Solicitor
General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. in court papers. "The employer almost
uniformly has knowledge of the latter," he said.
But
lawyers for Abercrombie countered that over the years applicants have
requested accommodations and the company has granted them.
"Here,
Elauf never identified her headscarf as religious, nor did Abercrombie
have actual knowledge of that fact from any other source," wrote Shay
Dvoretzky, a lawyer for the retailer. In Court he argued, "What we want
to avoid is a rule that leads employers, in order to avoid liability, to
start stereotyping about whether they think, guess or suspect that
somebody is doing something for religious regions."
Comments
Post a Comment